Madras High Court
M.Deena @ Deenadayalan vs The State Through on 4 August, 2023
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1049 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1049 of 2021
and Crl.M.P(MD).No.474 of 2021
1.M.Deena @ Deenadayalan
2.B.Anbalagan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State through
The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Madurai District.
Crime No.2 of 2012.
2.B.Dhanavalli ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.587 of 2019
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and quash the same
in respect of the petitioners/accused No.2 and 3.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.P.Dhamodaran
For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : No-appearance
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1049 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the
records in C.C.No.587 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Madurai and quash the same in respect of the
petitioners herein.
2. According to the petitioners, they have been doing real estate
business. The second respondent has approached the second petitioner
through one Shanmugarajeswaran, who is the first accused and the first
petitioner in the month of April 2010 for selling her house site situated at
S.No.59/2, Chettikulam Village, Madurai North Taluk. The sale price
was fixed as Rs.4,10,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ten Thousand only) and
the second respondent demanded the said amount urgently for her
daughter's marriage and thereby, she executed a deed of power of
attorney in favour of the second petitioner on 31.05.2010. On the same
day, the petitioners have paid the sale consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-
(Rupees Four Lakhs Ten Thousand only) to the second respondent in
cash and the second respondent issued a receipt for the said amount.
Thereafter, the petitioners have sold the said property to one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1049 of 2021
A.Nagarajan, who is the accused No.4 by way of a sale deed dated
17.06.2010. Thereafter, the second respondent without any reason
demanded more money from the second petitioner and he refused to give
the money, since he has already settled the sale consideration. Thereafter,
the second respondent, in order to wreck vengeance, lodged a false
complaint on 09.11.2011 against the petitioners and others, as if she had
deposited the title deeds for getting loan from the petitioners, but the
petitioners have cheated her and created false documents. The first
respondent has also mechanically registered a case in
Crime No.2 of 2012 against the petitioners and other two persons for the
offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 406 and 420 of IPC. The
second respondent, after receipt of the sale consideration, has executed
the deed of power of attorney and based on the same, the petitioners have
sold the property to the said Nagarajan. Hence, the charge sheet laid
against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.
3. No counter is filed by the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1049 of 2021
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
the second respondent approached the petitioners to sell her property and
thereby, the petitioners have obtained the deed of power of attorney in
their favour and paid the sale consideration of Rs.4,10,000/- (Rupees
Four Lakhs Ten Thousand only). Thereafter, the property was sold to the
fourth accused. While so, the second respondent demanded more money
from the petitioners and the petitioners have refused to give the same,
due to which, the second respondent has lodged a false complaint before
the first respondent. The first respondent, without enquiring the matter
properly, has registered a case against the petitioners. In fact, after
receipt of sale consideration, the second respondent had executed the
power of attorney deed. Therefore, he prays for quashing of C.C.No.587
of 2019 filed against the petitioners.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing
for the first respondent submits that the defacto complainant approached
the petitioners for obtaining loan for her daughter's marriage. She
deposited title deeds, but the petitioners obtained power of attorney deed
and thereafter, sold the property. There was no sale deed executed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1049 of 2021
second respondent. The petitioners have cheated the second respondent
and thereby, she gave a complaint before the first respondent, basing on
which, a case has been registered in Crime No.2 of 2012 and thereafter,
the investigation was completed and the final report was filed. The same
was taken on file in C.C.No.587 of 2019 by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Madurai.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the second
respondent.
7. According to the second respondent, she has received a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) and she deposited title deeds for
the loan obtained by her for her daughter's marriage. But, according to
the petitioners, she executed a power of attorney to sell her property and
on the same day, she received a sum of Rs.4,10,000/- (Rupees Four
Lakhs Ten Thousand only) from the petitioners and to that effect, she has
issued a receipt. According to the final report and the charge sheet, the
first accused introduced the other accused (i.e.,) A2 and A3 and they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1049 of 2021
obtained power deed and then, sold the property to the accused No.4.
Whether the second respondent executed the documents with an
intention to sell the property or not is a matter of trial and now, without
examining the witnesses, this Court cannot decide the same. The
offences also are serious in nature and need elaborate trial. But it is an
admitted fact that on the date of execution of power of attorney, the sale
was not taken place. The issue with regard to the execution of power of
attorney and the sale receipt have to be decided by the trial Court, after
elaborate trial. At this stage, this Court cannot go into the veracity of the
documents and the statements recorded by the prosecution.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mitesh
Kumar J.Sha vs. The State of Karnataka and others in Crl.A.No.1285
of 2021 and MNG Bharateesh Reddy vs. Ramesh Ranganathan and
another in Crl.A.No.1273 of 2022.
9. The judgment relied upon by the petitioners will not be
applicable to the present case, since in the present case, there are prima
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1049 of 2021
facie materials available against the petitioners. Therefore, as discussed
supra, there are no sufficient grounds to quash the charge sheet as against
the petitioners and in view of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd
vs. State of Maharastra and Others reported in 2021 SCC Online SC
315, this Court is declined to allow this petition.
10. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.08.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ssb
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Madurai District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1049 of 2021
P. DHANABAL,J.
ssb
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1049 of 2021
04.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
